Power Balance...WTF...??

[Live2DieTrying]

I can't understand why so many people are against chiropractics.
For back or neck pain, a good chiro will have you feeling right in 1 visit. A physio will give you a massage, have you do some stretches and book you in for 2 more sessions...

 

[martinpb]

I can't understand why so many people are against chiropractics.
For back or neck pain, a good chiro will have you feeling right in 1 visit. A physio will give you a massage, have you do some stretches and book you in for 2 more sessions...

There are a number of objections which are well detailed in Simon Singh's book "Trick or Treatment".

The bottom line is a lack of evidence of efficacy - i.e. chiropractors can't show that their treatments work better than placebo in a well designed and controlled clincial trail. The method's best results come in treating lower back pain, which is notoriously difficult to treat. In that case, it MAY work better than surgery (dangerous compared with outcomes), anti-inflamitories (cheaper with limited side effects) or acupuncture (total bollocks).

This lack of efficacy is combined with a known potential side effect of violent cervical spinal manipulation, becoming dead. The numbers for this particular side effect*, aren't dreadful, but since the medical problem is relitively minor (back pain) and the side effect is comparitively major (death), it brings into question the ethics of using this treatment.

*the number to treat (number of patients that you need to treat in order for one of them to get better) compared with number to harm (number of patients you need to treat in order to cause a particular damage to one of them)

On a more philosphical level, chiropractic is based on the theory that misalignment of the spine has deleterious effects on all elements of human health; and/or (depending on the practictioner) that there is some form of subtle energy that flows thought the spine and disruptions of this are responsible for disease. Both of these contentions are total bullshit.

There are known issues of spinal problems (breaking it being the most obvious - and this leads to numerous other health issues for SCI patients). However, there doesn't seem to be any evidence that your spine being out of line would lead to liver disorders, cholic, ear infections or other conditions not related to the spine or directly linked nervous system (which is a claim of some chiropractors).

On the subtle energy front: this is the same crap that is trotted out by just about every peddler of persudo-medicine (in varying levels (and in no particular order): homeopathy, chinese traditional medicine, accupuncture, reiki, ayruvedic, faith healing, reflexology, naturapathy, intercecionary prayer). That there is a force causing an effect to the patient; but which can't be detected by scientific means; but can be manipulated by the quack in some way to improve the health of the patient. This is so clearly self serving bullshit by the quack, that i'm amazed that anyone buys into it - until i meet people who are poorly served by the medical comunity (as i said, back pain is notoriously hard to treat) who are desperate for any form of relief from thier symptoms that they will pay money to try anything that may offer that relief.

So in short why i'm against chiropratic:
no good evidence it treats the problem
no scientific basis for it's effects
usually very expensive and prolonged treatments
potentially dangerous/lethal side effects
patients often refered to other persudo-medicine

 

[PSYCHO-T]

Not since the late Peter Brock started putting crystals under the bonnet of the VK HDT Commodore to soak up the negative energy on the car have I heard such a ... mmm...."claim"....

So what do you think?

Just remember it was said claim that caused the Holden Brock break up..

 

[trail_monkey]

There are a number of objections which are well detailed in Simon Singh's book "Trick or Treatment".

The bottom line is a lack of evidence of efficacy - i.e. chiropractors can't show that their treatments work better than placebo in a well designed and controlled clincial trail. The method's best results come in treating lower back pain, which is notoriously difficult to treat. In that case, it MAY work better than surgery (dangerous compared with outcomes), anti-inflamitories (cheaper with limited side effects) or acupuncture (total bollocks).

This lack of efficacy is combined with a known potential side effect of violent cervical spinal manipulation, becoming dead. The numbers for this particular side effect*, aren't dreadful, but since the medical problem is relitively minor (back pain) and the side effect is comparitively major (death), it brings into question the ethics of using this treatment.

*the number to treat (number of patients that you need to treat in order for one of them to get better) compared with number to harm (number of patients you need to treat in order to cause a particular damage to one of them)

On a more philosphical level, chiropractic is based on the theory that misalignment of the spine has deleterious effects on all elements of human health; and/or (depending on the practictioner) that there is some form of subtle energy that flows thought the spine and disruptions of this are responsible for disease. Both of these contentions are total bullshit.

There are known issues of spinal problems (breaking it being the most obvious - and this leads to numerous other health issues for SCI patients). However, there doesn't seem to be any evidence that your spine being out of line would lead to liver disorders, cholic, ear infections or other conditions not related to the spine or directly linked nervous system (which is a claim of some chiropractors).

On the subtle energy front: this is the same crap that is trotted out by just about every peddler of persudo-medicine (in varying levels (and in no particular order): homeopathy, chinese traditional medicine, accupuncture, reiki, ayruvedic, faith healing, reflexology, naturapathy, intercecionary prayer). That there is a force causing an effect to the patient; but which can't be detected by scientific means; but can be manipulated by the quack in some way to improve the health of the patient. This is so clearly self serving bullshit by the quack, that i'm amazed that anyone buys into it - until i meet people who are poorly served by the medical comunity (as i said, back pain is notoriously hard to treat) who are desperate for any form of relief from thier symptoms that they will pay money to try anything that may offer that relief.

Well said sir, +1.

 

[harmonix1234]

There are a number of objections which are well detailed in Simon Singh's book "Trick or Treatment".

The bottom line is a lack of evidence of efficacy - i.e. chiropractors can't show that their treatments work better than placebo in a well designed and controlled clincial trail. The method's best results come in treating lower back pain, which is notoriously difficult to treat. In that case, it MAY work better than surgery (dangerous compared with outcomes), anti-inflamitories (cheaper with limited side effects) or acupuncture (total bollocks).

This lack of efficacy is combined with a known potential side effect of violent cervical spinal manipulation, becoming dead. The numbers for this particular side effect*, aren't dreadful, but since the medical problem is relitively minor (back pain) and the side effect is comparitively major (death), it brings into question the ethics of using this treatment.

*the number to treat (number of patients that you need to treat in order for one of them to get better) compared with number to harm (number of patients you need to treat in order to cause a particular damage to one of them)

On a more philosphical level, chiropractic is based on the theory that misalignment of the spine has deleterious effects on all elements of human health; and/or (depending on the practictioner) that there is some form of subtle energy that flows thought the spine and disruptions of this are responsible for disease. Both of these contentions are total bullshit.

There are known issues of spinal problems (breaking it being the most obvious - and this leads to numerous other health issues for SCI patients). However, there doesn't seem to be any evidence that your spine being out of line would lead to liver disorders, cholic, ear infections or other conditions not related to the spine or directly linked nervous system (which is a claim of some chiropractors).

On the subtle energy front: this is the same crap that is trotted out by just about every peddler of persudo-medicine (in varying levels (and in no particular order): homeopathy, chinese traditional medicine, accupuncture, reiki, ayruvedic, faith healing, reflexology, naturapathy, intercecionary prayer). That there is a force causing an effect to the patient; but which can't be detected by scientific means; but can be manipulated by the quack in some way to improve the health of the patient. This is so clearly self serving bullshit by the quack, that i'm amazed that anyone buys into it - until i meet people who are poorly served by the medical comunity (as i said, back pain is notoriously hard to treat) who are desperate for any form of relief from thier symptoms that they will pay money to try anything that may offer that relief.

So in short why i'm against chiropratic:
no good evidence it treats the problem
no scientific basis for it's effects
usually very expensive and prolonged treatments
potentially dangerous/lethal side effects
patients often refered to other persudo-medicine

What about Osteopaths?

 

[rone]

And Bowen therapy?

 

[steve24]

I can't understand why so many people are against chiropractics.
For back or neck pain, a good chiro will have you feeling right in 1 visit. A physio will give you a massage, have you do some stretches and book you in for 2 more sessions...

I recently went to a chiro who worked out that i needed to see him 4 times a week for the 1st 3 months then 2-3 times/ week for the rest of the year.
He then asked me to come to what i call an infomercial session with a group of 10 others.
Funny thing is everyone needed the same level of treatment, which would cost over $5000.

 

[harmonix1234]

I recently went to a chiro who worked out that i needed to see him 4 times a week for the 1st 3 months then 2-3 times/ week for the rest of the year.
He then asked me to come to what i call an infomercial session with a group of 10 others.
Funny thing is everyone needed the same level of treatment, which would cost over $5000.

Wow. What an amazing coincidence!

 

[trail_monkey]

What about Oseopaths?

I received treatment for back pain (old basketball injury) from an Osteopath a few years back on the recommendation of a friend. I think I was quite fortunate that my osteo gave a good massage and didn't subscribe (at least vocally) to the mind/body/spirit principle of osteopathy. When my osteo wasn't available I would book in for a massage and experienced similar levels of relief so eventually I just stopped going to the osteo.

Whether osteopathy is valid or not I think depends on what your osteo says it can do. My personal experience is that its manual therapy is effective for muscle stiffness, but no better than massage. I'd be incredibly dubious of anything beyond that claim. Unfortunately alternative therapies (i.e. those without empirical support) are popping up all over the place. When my physio offered me acupuncture a little while back for a torn back muscle I gave it a shot because I was curious and am currently doing some research into personality traits & alternative therapy. I wasn't expecting it to work, and it didn't. While this treatment doesn't invalidate physiotherapy as a profession it has no basis in medicine. Needless to say I changed physiotherapists.

Interestingly I have been almost pain free for the last 6 months without seeing a physio, masseuse etc. The main difference that I can identify is that 6 months ago I took up MTB

 

[martinpb]

What about Oseopaths?

Pretty much the same. I understand there is better evidence for Osteo as being an effective treatment for lower back pain. Also, because it doesn't rely on forceful manipulations it's much less likely to injure the patient. Again, it can be very expensive compared with physio (if you need repeat appointments). The basis for the treatment is also flawed, the man who invented the system was a germ theory denier, who suggested that bodily dysfunction could all be accounted for by muscular-skeletal issues.

Both osteo and chiro are almost research free environments. This is a problem in that: medicine should be constantly under review to improve outcomes, otherwise it stagnates into ritual. The research varies from drug trials (straight science) to population health (wide area stats) via actions like the "grand round" (clinical practice). All of that work has pushed our mean (and median) age of death up about 100% since the beginnings of scientific medicine. Other outcomes such as improved quality of life harder to measure, but actions like the eradication of smallpox could be seen as improving quality of life; unless blindness is seen as a "lifestyle choice". If the research doesn't occur, or is poorly carried out*, then there is no way of knowing if what you are doing has any real effect. It could be that the patient would have got better anyway, or that any form of ritual would have caused the patient to feel better (the basis of the placebo effect). More importantly, all of that research has allowed us to understand WHY events occur (germs cause infectious diseases, DNA damage leads to cancer, misregulation of homeostasis is related to any number of problems). All that osteo and chiro can offer is that some from of misalignment of some part of the body is responsible for ill health. Unless they are able to expand on the mechanism for the ill health and how their treatment works on a cellular or molecular level, they will always be seen as over paid physios or downright quacks.

*anyone can now jump in to point out any number of poorly carried out medical trials or dead ends in clinical practice if they want to bag "big pharma", but that pointing out the errors of that system doesn't do anything to make pseudo-medicine any more efficacious. Not to mention that we know of the failures of medical interventions because research showed that they were not having the best outcomes. If someone would like to correct me on this I’m happy: the best example being antiarhythmics being a bad thing to give to heart attack patients. The idea behind proscribing them was logically sound; the initial trials looked reasonable; in the end they worked out they were killing people and stopped the practice almost overnight.

 

[martinpb]

Well said sir, +1.

thank you!

 

[trail_monkey]

My favourite aspect of the Power Balance phenomenon is that you can report fakes.

http://www.powerbalance.com/australia/report-a-fake

It's akin to complaining that the snake oil you purchased is counterfeit.

 

[thecat]

Pretty much the same. I understand there is better evidence for Osteo as being an effective treatment for lower back pain..

How about Psychotherapy? No long term studies on the effectiveness. Claimed 48% patent "drop out" rates and vague if any figures on long term success rates

 

[harmonix1234]

Pretty much the same. I understand there is better evidence for Osteo as being an effective treatment for lower back pain. Also, because it doesn't rely on forceful manipulations it's much less likely to injure the patient. Again, it can be very expensive compared with physio (if you need repeat appointments). The basis for the treatment is also flawed, the man who invented the system was a germ theory denier, who suggested that bodily dysfunction could all be accounted for by muscular-skeletal issues.

Both osteo and chiro are almost research free environments. This is a problem in that: medicine should be constantly under review to improve outcomes, otherwise it stagnates into ritual. The research varies from drug trials (straight science) to population health (wide area stats) via actions like the "grand round" (clinical practice). All of that work has pushed our mean (and median) age of death up about 100% since the beginnings of scientific medicine. Other outcomes such as improved quality of life harder to measure, but actions like the eradication of smallpox could be seen as improving quality of life; unless blindness is seen as a "lifestyle choice". If the research doesn't occur, or is poorly carried out*, then there is no way of knowing if what you are doing has any real effect. It could be that the patient would have got better anyway, or that any form of ritual would have caused the patient to feel better (the basis of the placebo effect). More importantly, all of that research has allowed us to understand WHY events occur (germs cause infectious diseases, DNA damage leads to cancer, misregulation of homeostasis is related to any number of problems). All that osteo and chiro can offer is that some from of misalignment of some part of the body is responsible for ill health. Unless they are able to expand on the mechanism for the ill health and how their treatment works on a cellular or molecular level, they will always be seen as over paid physios or downright quacks.

*anyone can now jump in to point out any number of poorly carried out medical trials or dead ends in clinical practice if they want to bag "big pharma", but that pointing out the errors of that system doesn't do anything to make pseudo-medicine any more efficacious. Not to mention that we know of the failures of medical interventions because research showed that they were not having the best outcomes. If someone would like to correct me on this I’m happy: the best example being antiarhythmics being a bad thing to give to heart attack patients. The idea behind proscribing them was logically sound; the initial trials looked reasonable; in the end they worked out they were killing people and stopped the practice almost overnight.

Ok then.
So what I can gather from this is that certain medical practices that promote and encourage rigorous and ongoing clinical studies that can be documented and analysed over a long term basis are theoretically the ones that can at least support their claims, and add gravity to their profession.

So, how many of these trials and tests are regulated, and how many are actually created by pharmaceautical companies and particular medical disciplines simply to make their product or service have some 'reliable research' behind them to increase their own market or income.

I don't mean to be a sceptic, but for every problem there IS one medical profession that will be able to do more than another for that individual. and after years of bad service I trust none of them now. So how do you weed out the chaff and find the right one?
I had a sore back years ago and was told I needed reiki, then chiro, then yoga.
They all did shit until I gave up, then I found a pilates dvd in my GF's drawer and did that few a few weeks and sha-bing! Self healed. Years later and still no pain.
That was pure luck.... So how does one really know?

BTW - Back on topic for the original post, I think I would actually like a power band. (I wouldn't pay for one though) Even though I know they are just rubber, it's the mental edge of feeling like you may actually have just a little 'magic' power in the back of the fuel tank.
The mental affects on riding are huge. And I think the placebo effect can work, even if you are aware of it, if it is based in some sort of metaphysical, and therefore unproveable context.

 

[trail_monkey]

I don't mean to be a sceptic

You should be a sceptic it's not a bad thing

BTW - Back on topic for the original post, I think I would actually like a power band. (I wouldn't pay for one though) Even though I know they are just rubber, it's the mental edge of feeling like you may actually have just a little 'magic' power in the back of the fuel tank.
The mental affects on riding are huge. And I think the placebo effect can work, even if you are aware of it, if it is based in some sort of metaphysical, and therefore unproveable context.

CHOICE did some double-blind trials where some participants reported that they performed better with the band, some with hologram in & others with it removed. The measuring showed that they actually didn't. It might make you feel like you performed better but unless you have someone actually measuring your performance you won't know.

http://www.choice.com.au/reviews-an...ise-equipment/power balance quick review.aspx

I wouldn't wear one because a) it's bogus and b) because it promotes pseudo-science.

 

[harmonix1234]

I wouldn't wear one because a) it's bogus and b) because it promotes pseudo-science.

Valid reasons too. So, people 'felt' like they performed better, but didn't actually improve performance. Interesting.
So, if they are based in pseudo science, and the MTB crowd has such good bullsh*t sniffometers, and we are fussy about what we use, then why are all the bike shops selling them? Shouldn't the staff/managers know better than to cheat their loyal customers with bogus wares and false promises?

If you went into a bike shop and they said "here, buy these pills, we don't know what's in them or what they do, but we reckon their good for your riding" you probably wouldn't take them would you? So why are the bands so popular? Gullible masses?

Surely there has to be something to them. Otherwise anyone could setup a business selling for example, cardboard strips with nice smelling stuff on it to keep in your jersey pocket to improve 'clarity of mind and focus'. MTB Aroma Edge Sports Strips. And they're bio-degradable!

 

[martinpb]

So, how many of these trials and tests are regulated, and how many are actually created by pharmaceautical companies and particular medical disciplines simply to make their product or service have some 'reliable research' behind them to increase their own market or income..

Largely depends on the type of trail. I thought I'd addressed this in the prevous post. You can bag big pharma for being arseholes and you'd be right, but that doesn't take away from the fact that on average they've helped make us a lot healthier for a lot longer.

Drug trials will tend to be more dodgy, but then you should talk to my HoD. He worked on some stuff for Genietech that if you got told how they did the trail and you know nothing of molecular biology, it could easily be spun as "they picked the people the drug worked on". In fact they sort of did pick them, because it turns out that Japanese women who have never smoked are much better targets for the drug they were working on (about 100% more effective IIRC). This discovery led them to reevaluate several of their programs and we should start seeing the flow though of drugs pick up over the next few years because of this.

The flip side is a lot of basic observational studies are young doctors doing the work in their spare time. That can lead to poor research because they don't have the rounded background that comes from working with a cell biologist on one side, a stats guy on the other. To balance this, research is graded, and placed in a hirachy with the amount of weight given to a particular piece of work related to how well the trail was performed (well designed randomised double/triple blinded controlled trails are at the top, expert opinion is at the bottom).

I don't mean to be a sceptic

Never appologise for thinking! (but don't get carried away with trying to deny evidence)

That was pure luck.... So how does one really know?

Depends upon the condition. If you suspect you've got AIDS the outcome is you're going to die, so the diagnosis and treatment are critical, if you get them wrong the outcomes are bad. For a bad back, the outcome is you're in pain, so the urgancy to get the diagnosis and treatment right is less (I realise that there are problems with this comparison such as AIDS being a one factor problem (no HIV, no AIDS), while a bad back can come from a number of causes - but the principle is there).

To answer your question - the best thing to do is to try to read the literature yourself on any condition you have. At least then you'll know what's been tried and what may work for you. A good place to start is the Cochrane library - a free database of reviews of clinical practice.

The mental affects on riding are huge. And I think the placebo effect can work, even if you are aware of it, if it is based in some sort of metaphysical, and therefore unproveable context.

Yep - don't want to get into what is and isn't placebo, but safe to say that if i wear my lucky gloves i feel that i can ride faster (rationalisation is that they grip better, but i don't really believe it ;-)

 

[trail_monkey]

If they are based in pseudo science, and the MTB crowd has such good bullsh*t sniffometers, and we are fussy about what we use, then why are all the bike shops selling them? Shouldn't the staff/managers know better than to cheat their loyal customers with bogus wares and false promises

If you went into a bike shop and they said "here, buy these pills, we don't know what's in them or what they do, but we reckon their good for your riding" you probably wouldn't take them would you? So why are the bands so popular? Gullible masses?

Athletes are notoriously superstitious and I'm not convinced that the MTB crowd is significantly better at detecting bull. But you're right, there is an expectation that the staff/managers know what they are doing and wouldn't sell you magic beans. I think that almost certainly contributes to sales. But this isn't unique to our sport either, walk into any chemist (where your pharmacist has a 4 year university degree) and you'll see wall to wall vitamins and homoeopathic remedies which (to borrow a line from Tim Minchin) have either been proven not to work, or not been proven to work.

Additionally the marketing for Power Bands has been very clever with all the advertising based on Professional Athlete testimonials as opposed to scientific claims. It's frustrating but we tend to trust these messages, often more-so than messages supported by evidence.

 

[thecat]

If you went into a bike shop and they said "here, buy these pills, we don't know what's in them or what they do, but we reckon their good for your riding" you probably wouldn't take them would you? So why are the bands so popular? Gullible masses?

Marketing and Gen Y being trend whores.

Choice study showed they were bogas.

In the other thread Arete showed how the "test" they do on customers to "prove" there effectiveness is basic Kinesiology and nothing to do with holograms, energy fields or rubber wrist bands (check out this site and watch the vid)

ACCC rules false advertising and issues an order for the importer to refund anyone that feels mislead by the obvious false claims in marketing. The CEO of the import admits publicly there is absolutely no proof they do what they have been claiming. People continue to buy them anyway... Idiots

The bike shop is a business, if you have customers wanting to pay money for something most business will supply it. I refuse to stock them. has it cost me sales on a bit of rubber with a ridiculously big mark up? probably

 

[schwing]

The bike shop is a business, if you have customers wanting to pay money for something most business will supply it. I refuse to stock them. has it cost me sales on a bit of rubber with a ridiculously big mark up? probably

All I can say is long live thecat - I don't say you have believe in everything you sell, but it's mice to see a line drawn.

I'd install an empty powerband display and advertise they were stolen by a bunch of flying pigs dressed as leprachauns, swinging off a sky hook.

There's no way these should be compared to chiro or osteo treatments - both of which have offered me genuine relief - due in part their close association in modalities to proven and accepted physiotherapy.

again - long live thecat